If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

vs.

Quote

It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

To paraphrase Dr.3, "it's just god of the gaps restated in the idiom of information theory."

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

How I'd like to see him try. That's the least the bigmouth could do.

it would be the christian thing, that's for sure. but Mr. Quantum-Mechanics-Is-Duh-Designer here don't give no shits about stuff like making sense because the CAT IS DEAD AND ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME AND ONLY JESUS CAN MAKE THE PARTICLES STOP WAVING

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

hey i have a question, could critical theory be of any use to these amino acids? what about non-normative philosophical orientations? do you think that seven could be involved?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry? We all know that's where this is headed.

now now skipping foreplay is not sexy

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

Quote

So, now that's out of the way...

No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

Quote

back to amino acids. Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff. The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal. This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff. If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

The rest is simply irrelevant. If you think it is relevant then hone in on your argument with some references and I'll look at it.

and remember that a racemic solution is ALWAYS in equilibrium.

Quote

..... as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).

You have refered twice now to the addition of a catalyst. A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture? (also some references, please)

Also, if someone added this catalyst to the racemic mixture, isn't this intelligent design?

Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

Quote

So, now that's out of the way...

No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

Quote

back to amino acids. Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff. The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal. This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff. If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

Now for this howler...

Quote

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means)

Actually you did, because your entire "CSI calculation" depends on it. You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

Therefore, your entire CSI 'calculation' is based on a false premise. Actually, that's just ANOTHER false premise that the CSI calculation is based on.

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Since we both know that you can't do this, then we all know that CSI is utterly useless.

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

Again, that means that your CSI 'calculation', which, BTW, you have never actually done for any protein, is utterly useless.

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

Sure—for any one instance of Flipping 100 Coins, the odds of getting 100 heads is, indeed, going to be 1:2100.Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

Quote

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).

Quote

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

If all you're interested in is the probability that Event E occurs during any one opportunity for Event E to occur, then sure, you're right about the math being the same. But if you're interested in the probability that Event E will ever occur during any of N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the math is not the same.

Quote

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system.

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it. The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.Of course, if CSI genuinely is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, it follows that CSI is utterly and completely irrelevant to any whatzit which did not occur all at once, in a single stroke…

Quote

Quote

I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

Of course not. Your logic is faulty here…

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

Quote

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.

Yes, the specific details of the system you're studying are very relevant indeed to calculating the probability of that system's having yielded some particular result. So if you're interested in the probability of unguided abiogenesis having occurred, how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?

Quote

Quote

If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the specific details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Given a Process P1 that involves odds-of-heads of 1:2, and a different Process P2 that involves odds-of-heads of 1023:1024, the probability of getting 100 heads will vary dramatically, depending on whether the process by which you got 100 heads is Process P1, or Process P2, or some entirely different Process P3 whose odds-of-heads differs from the odds-of-heads of either Process P1 or Process P2, or what.

Quote

We have added intelligence into the system.

No, we've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. If intelligence happens to be one of the details in question, then sure, intelligence can affect the probability of Event E's occurring—but that doesn't alter the fact that in general, even when intelligence is not one of the details in question, the probability of some Event E having occurred is dependent on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E.

Quote

Quote

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.

That's not correct… don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician…

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud. But even if I accept your risible mischaracterization of Dembski as a 'mathematician', that does not make him a statistician. Since you said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added], one would hope that you would take care to, like, cite only statisticians in support of your assertion about what statisticians had "concluded through Borel’s Law". But hey, if you want to make IDiots look like idiots, do feel free to continue screwing up!

Quote

…and I named a few others including Borel.

Since "Borel's Law" doesn't actually say what you Creationists claim it says, you can name Borel all you want and it won't make any difference; you're still bullshitting. You also named Brewster and Morris, and you ignored my question: "How did Brewster and Morris come up with this '1067' figure?" Since, you know, the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E, it would be very interesting indeed to know the specific details Brewster and Morris were assuming when they calculated their putative "ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years".

Quote

Quote

If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so.

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.After I deal out the first card, there are (52 - 1 =) 51 cards left, so whatever Card #2 is, the chance that that card came up must be 1:51, and the chance of that particular 2-card sequence must be (1:52 * 51 =) 1:2,652. Again, if I'm wrong here, do inform me of where my error lies.After I deal out the second card, there are (52 - 2 = ) 50 cards, so whatever Card #3 is, its probability of coming up must be 1:50. Thus, the chance of that particular 3-card sequence coming up must be (1:52 * 51 * 50 =) 1:132,600.Similarly, the chance of any one 4-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 =) 1:6,497,400; the chance of any one 5-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 =) 1:311,875,200; the chance of any one 6-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 =) 1:14,658,134,400; and so on, until the chance of any one 52-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * … * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 =) 1:80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000

.

Quote

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?

Quote

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

So… if I shuffle a standard 52-card deck, and I don't write down which card I expect to come up first… whatever that first card is, I can't say that the odds of that card having come up, are 1:52?Hmm.By this 'reasoning', it's not possible to work out the odds of abiogenesis if you haven't previously nailed down the specific details of abiogenesis. Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting.

Quote

Quote

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.

I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium…

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?

Quote

And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

Well alrighty then..

Quote

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

Quote

You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

Quote

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

Quote

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

Quote

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

Quote

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

Well alrighty then.. :)

Quote

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

Quote

You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

Quote

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

Quote

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

Quote

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

Quote

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs..... ;)

Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.

Feel free to ignore them. But they show that your claim is wrong. Note that it's not one paper, but many.

As far as this

Quote

You haven't given me any other argument to consider.

That's because it's YOUR argument. It's in the actual 'calculation' of CSI.

If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science. Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.

Let me ask this very plainly.

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?

Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.

Quote

A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture?

Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

Quote

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).

Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0.....

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

Quote

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.

It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......

Quote

The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.

Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

Quote

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

Quote

how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?

I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

Quote

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?

Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

Quote

Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.

You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

Quote

feel free to continue screwing up!

Thank you.. And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.

Quote

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.

LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

Quote

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?

Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......

Quote

Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed! for the proposition that you're just bullshitting

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

Quote

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?

No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.

Quote

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno...

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

Right here is where your little train leaves the tracks, and you demonstrate that you don't understand probability theory. Let me count the ways...

1. Your argument assumes that UPB is a valid concept.

2. You can't calculate the probability of whether or not something can occur if you, at the same time, contend that it can't occur.

3. In order to be able to calculate the probability of unguided abiogenesis, you would need to KNOW all of the necessary constituents and variables. You would have to KNOW that it's possible.

I could go on, but I won't. If there is a one in 40-brazilian chance that something will happen, and there are 40 brazilian opportunities, it will probably happen. Unless you can demonstrate what constitutes an opportunity, and control for it, you have nothing.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

"The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed."

jerry, name something in the wild that has 499 bits of information in it, something that has 500 bits in it, and something that has 501 bits in it. Also, who or what "specified" the alleged complex information in a "system"?

Name a few things in the wild that are not a system, and a few things that just barely meet the requirements to be called a system.

If there were no humans to "detect design", would there be such a thing as 'complex specified information'?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.

No, I don't claim to be a scientist in any capacity if you care to look at qualifications. I consider a scientist to be at the masters level or above and I have only studied science at the undergrad level. I am in fact, in a ministry to societally mal-treated poor people as my vocation.

But you seem present rather to assess me than the argument......

I understand that there would be around 20 or so different amino acids in the mixture. and the mixture is racemic.....not ALL mirror images of one another. I think you are being perhaps intentionally obtuse???

Quote

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.

Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

Quote

Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

Yes, it's a big scary number. Do you still not get thata) No proteins extant today are (or have ever been) randomly assembled from amino acids

b) That you still assume that all amino acid binding is equally likely

c) that there is not one, but hundreds of billions of binding events happening every second all over the universe (yes, I said universe and I meant universe).

Quote

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

Quote

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).

Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

ASsuming what you're trying to prove.

Quote

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

Quote

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.

It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......

We are debating whether CSI can actually do anything for us. So far, we've found 3 fundamental mistakes in your assumptions for the use of CSI. Any one of them totally destroys the concept.

Quote

Quote

The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.

Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

There is another answer to randomness. Evolution, that is random mutation and natural selection.

You have basically reduced this to a false dichotomy. It either must be designed or it must be random. Since it isn't random (you think), then it must be designed.

Again, false dichotomy, there is another option. One that actually has evidential support.

Quote

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

Quote

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

Quote

how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?

I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

You really don't keep up do you? Abiogenesis, as you described, is what YOU EXPECT to happen. You expect a fully formed mouse to appear. That's what your calculation show is highly improbable.

However, the scientific version of abiogenesis, which has 60+ years of evidential support* is that life can come from non-life. But we're not talking about mice from sacks of wheat. We're talking about self reproducing (with a catalyst probably) precursors to living things. Anything that is self reproducing will be acted on by evolution.

Quote

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

And therefore thrown away all of science

Quote

Quote

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?

Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

Quote

Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.

You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

Quote

feel free to continue screwing up!

Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.

Quote

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.

LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

And with it... yours

Quote

Quote

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?

Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......

Quote

Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

You're right, you don't lay out a model and declare it do be impossible. You do that without thinking about it.

Quote

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

But it can occur naturally. The fact that you choose to ignore the papers I presented is not our problem. I don't have to spoon feed this to you. You're a big boy with science knowledge (or so you say).

Again, the facts are that you are ignoring the facts. Just making yourself look silly.

Quote

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Again, it doesn't matter. because we don't expect a 250 protein chain to appear after random construction. Although, abiogenesis research shows that well over 100 AA chains can spontaneously self-assemble.

Of course, you probably don't know that the shortest RNA chain that is capable of catalyzing reactions is only 5 nucleotides long. That's almost trivial to form randomly in this day and age. And it's not just 1, but an entire group of pentamers.

Quote

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

I thought you studied biology. Because all modern proteins are assembled using DNA or RNA as a template, mRNA as a coding strand and ribosomes as a construction system.

Again, no modern proteins form randomly and they never have.

Quote

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

yep, the odds don't change. But that doesn't mean that the odds actually have any relationship to the real world.

Quote

Quote

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?

No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.

Quote

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)

This isn't for you. It's for the lurkers and I'm learning stuff too.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

Quote

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).

Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

Quote

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.

It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......

Quote

The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.

Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

Quote

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

Quote

how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?

I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

Quote

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?

Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

Quote

Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.

You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

Quote

feel free to continue screwing up!

Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.

Quote

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.

LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

Quote

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?

Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......

Quote

Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

Quote

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?

No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.

Quote

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)

jerry, you're nothing but an arrogant, IDiotic, snake-oil salesman.

You like to say "we" and "us", and "no one on either side" yet you demand that people here make their OWN arguments and that they support their OWN arguments with references to papers that YOU approve of, but you expect others to accept your arguments and whatever references you come up with, if any, even when your references don't support your lame arguments.

You're playing the same games that all IDiots play. You're all bluff and bullshit. You try to make it sound as though you speak for many others (on both 'sides') and as though you have science on your 'side' but you're wrong on both counts. You expect others to "demonstrate" their claims but you haven't demonstrated anything except that you're just another delusional creobot.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.

Feel free to ignore them. But they show that your claim is wrong. Note that it's not one paper, but many.

I'll ignore them until you bring some kind of argument using them as references. You're surely not new to debate. It is not my job to go out and research papers to support YOUR argument.

Put an argument in your own words, then quote and link the papers. That's how it works.

Quote

If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science. Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.

No, lol...it is you debating against established science...particularly, chemical equilibrium in a racemic solution. That is so elementary that were I discussing this with a scientist, it would be a given.

Quote

Let me ask this very plainly.

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?

Yes it is. Please note that I did NOT say designed by WHAT. it could be designed by a computer, DNA replication, mathematicians, but it was designed by SOMETHING.

Quote

Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.

Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:

Quote

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein.

But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance. (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chance.

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.

Feel free to ignore them. But they show that your claim is wrong. Note that it's not one paper, but many.

I'll ignore them until you bring some kind of argument using them as references. You're surely not new to debate. It is not my job to go out and research papers to support YOUR argument.

Put an argument in your own words, then quote and link the papers. That's how it works.

Quote

If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science. Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.

No, lol...it is you debating against established science...particularly, chemical equilibrium in a racemic solution. That is so elementary that were I discussing this with a scientist, it would be a given.

Quote

Let me ask this very plainly.

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?

Yes it is. Please note that I did NOT say designed by WHAT. it could be designed by a computer, DNA replication, mathematicians, but it was designed by SOMETHING.

Quote

Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?

I have no idea..I don't even remember what white noise is..lol.

The argument is that you are wrong. Each of those papers shows a method by which homochirality is possible.

That's my argument. You are incorrect in your statement that all solutions, especially of organic compounds, are automatically 50/50.

I've said it in my own words 4 times now. I don't know how much more you want. Do you want a list of the various ways in which homochirality can appear?

Ah and now we start getting to the equivocation. Let me ask this. Can evolution be the designer?

YOU are the one who brought up Shannon. The question I asked is an elementary question when discussing Shannon information. You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

For example, you STILL think that there is an equal probability for any amino acid to attach to another. I think we need a reference on this one.

Why don't you state the argument in your own words and then provide some links and quotes to peer-reviewed research that shows this to be the case?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.